Confused on which lens to buy.

[lordpain]

hi guys. im currently using a 400d and im looking into buy a new lens to further develop my style of photography. Currently, I have no defined style yet, but Im interested in developing into event journalism or like street candid. I would also love to have my lens to be a good general walkabout lens as i would bring it to travel. Im currently looking at a few lenses.

24 - 105 mm F4.0L IS USM - I like the focal range of this, but abit not too satisfied with the 24 end. cos im using a 1.6 crop camera. I have tested the lens. I LOVE the the weight of the lens. Image quality is sharp. The Is was useful at the 105 end. But i was worrying if this lens is suitable for low light? cos its like f4? Would u guys recommend if i get this lens and get a 50mm prime to compliment it?

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L - Im ok with the focal range as well. the comments would be the same as above. But what i worry is without IS, can i take as clear photos as i may be quite shaky. The speed of the lens is great. I can take good photos without beaming strobes. But as i siad above no IS. Anyway how does this compare to the tamron 17-50 f2.8? Is the tamron good enough to do low light shoots. Im aware that both have no IS.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - This lens is godlike. I love everything. Everything i need including IS and f2.8. BUT is this a good investment? Its not a L lens, though clarity is almost similar. The only thing its missing from an L lens is the ruggedness of an L lens. The price of this lens also almost pars up to the prices of the L lens. What i worry is that in the near future i might upgrade to cameras that do not use the EF-S mount, and i may not be able to use it then. Thus having second thought.

Guys please do give me your views on which lens to get. Pros and Cons if u do use all these lens. Hopefully i can decide which one to get soon, as I will be flying to thailand next month.

 

[wazzup]

Get 17-40L.

 

[lordpain]

the 17-40 doesnt give me range i need as a telezoom. i may consider it after ive bought one of the above mentioned lenses. but that wouldnt be any time soon. Would u mind giving more details why 17-40 is such a good choice?

 

[wazzup]

the 17-40 doesnt give me range i need as a telezoom. i may consider it after ive bought one of the above mentioned lenses. but that wouldnt be any time soon. Would u mind giving more details why 17-40 is such a good choice?

After your 1.6 = 27- 64. Isn't that a good telezoom? Your photojournalism is not voyuerism right? So what sort of telezoom is you lookingz for? 70-200 f/2.8 IS? Won't zat be too long?

At 17z~40 you won't need IS and it will fitz your shootingz ztyle. Isn't that a good choize?

 

[lordpain]

64 isnt really much of a telezoom for me i think. persoanlly. No offence. But think a 100 dollar 50mm prime would do a good job. Just walk abit back. hmm if u recommend such a range how bout the tamron? Cos i do not have such a budget for another L lens. for me i like to take close up portriats of emotions. that kind. i do need abit of the wider end due to travel usages.

something id like to add. i would like something that has best of both worlds abit on the wide and telezoom side. wide is for travel and full body photos. tele is for closeup on emotions.

 

[waileong]

Normally one looks at buying lenses that complement one another, eg. 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 will cover one all the way through to 200 mm.

The 24-105 is an attempt by Canon to provide a general walkabout lens, good enough for moderate wide angle, good enough for portraits/short telephoto, and fast enough at f4 when shooting at 800 or 1600.

If you're concerned about low light, there's little point (in my view) for getting a 2.8 lens over an F4 lens. The price and weight increase is a lot, while the light increase is only one stop.

Better to get a dedicated low light lens (F1.4), a prime lens such as an 85/1.2 or a 50/1.4, and use that whenever you have low light shooting requirements. It'll be cheaper and lighter too.

 

[lordpain]

I was thinking about it too. The 50mm doesnt cost much and i dont mind getting it as a low light lens. I was thinking. A super wide angle by Sigma i think the 10-22. then the canon 24-105, super telezoom yet to decide. then i would be covering most ranges. Then I would have another set of primes to cover my low light. Hmm does this sound like a good investment? But ill probably get the general walkabout range lens first.

Normally one looks at buying lenses that complement one another, eg. 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 will cover one all the way through to 200 mm.

The 24-105 is an attempt by Canon to provide a general walkabout lens, good enough for moderate wide angle, good enough for portraits/short telephoto, and fast enough at f4 when shooting at 800 or 1600.

If you're concerned about low light, there's little point (in my view) for getting a 2.8 lens over an F4 lens. The price and weight increase is a lot, while the light increase is only one stop.

Better to get a dedicated low light lens (F1.4), a prime lens such as an 85/1.2 or a 50/1.4, and use that whenever you have low light shooting requirements. It'll be cheaper and lighter too.

 

[lordpain]

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - has anyone used this lens before. Any comments about it? Havent tested it out yet hoping to test it out this weekend at one of the shops. I also worry that 55mm is not wide angle as tested out on my kit lens.

 

[wazzup]

64 isnt really much of a telezoom for me i think. persoanlly. No offence. But think a 100 dollar 50mm prime would do a good job. Just walk abit back. hmm if u recommend such a range how bout the tamron? Cos i do not have such a budget for another L lens. for me i like to take close up portriats of emotions. that kind. i do need abit of the wider end due to travel usages.

something id like to add. i would like something that has best of both worlds abit on the wide and telezoom side. wide is for travel and full body photos. tele is for closeup on emotions.

24 - 105 mm F4.0L IS USM - I like the focal range of this, but abit not too satisfied with the 24 end

Contradictory leh.

 

[lordpain]

id pick the 50mm for 2 reasons. 1, its cheap ( i dont have cash to get best of both worlds ) 2, works well in low light. So my might point is that it would compliment the f4 of the 24-105, to work in low light.

 

[wazzup]

id pick the 50mm for 2 reasons. 1, its cheap ( i dont have cash to get best of both worlds ) 2, works well in low light. So my might point is that it would compliment the f4 of the 24-105, to work in low light.

Then get it.

 

[lordpain]

wah wah.... dont need to be so fierce bah. we are here to discuss the pros and cons of the lens... this topic is not only for me. i think alot of other photogs would also come across this dilemma. please do share your views.

 

[wazzup]

wah wah.... dont need to be so fierce bah. we are here to discuss the pros and cons of the lens... this topic is not only for me. i think alot of other photogs would also come across this dilemma. please do share your views.

No lah, I not fierce pardon my typing, maybe I sounded like that. Just wanted to tell you to "get it, mtl!" Heehee. Relax relax.

 

[waileong]

Andymd?

 

[randytay]

It seems the OP already has his mind set on the 50mm and just needs a second pinion to support that decision, no?

Anyway, if you are looking at the 50mm f1.8 I would say for that price you really cannot complain BUT.. the AF on that lens is excruciatingly slow. If you are interested to do candids, that is one of the worset lens you can have.

The 17-55 EF-S lens is a great lens. Though not an L lens, its quality (image, not build is on par with an L lens. It was designed specifically for the APS-C size sensor to cover a rough equivalent of a 24-70 on a full frame. The only reason it is not designated an L is simply because it is in EF-S format. If you can look beyond that, this would be my top recommendation for you as a general lens. Note however that it does not comes with an lens hood and you have to buy it separately.

Both the 24-70 and 24-105 are good lens but the 24-70 is somewhat better in quality imho. However, because if the size of your sensor, you will be severely lacking in wide-angle shots, so unless you have a wide zoom already or if you have a 1 series camera, I would adivse you to get the 17-55 over any of these 2 lenses. Of course you can buy this AND a 17-40 or 16-35 together but thats a different story. If you absolutely have to choose btween the 2, I recommend you the 24-70 over the 105 version as the IQ of the former is indeed better.

If you MUST have an L lens, depending your budget, the 17-40 or the 16-35II are both superd lens with the latter the ost expensive of all the lenses we have discussed so far. The IQ of the 17-40 is comparable to the 16-35II and at F4 as its widest aperture, is good enough for most general shoots (uless you shoot concerts exclusively). For a APS-C format, the 17-40 is arguably the best lens to have especially if you are thinking of upgrading into 1 of the 1-series cameras or te 5D as it will be totally compatible. At the 40mm end, it is good enough for a general portrait lens (64 and 70 i snot much of a difference, and alot of my portraits are done on the 24-70 on a 1DsMKII). So the conclusion....

If you are not getting the 1DsMKII, 1DMKII(N), 1DMKIII or the 5D, or if you do not mind not having a branded L lens, go for the 17-55. If you must have an L lens, go for the 17-40. Stay away from the 50MM 1.8 if intend to do candids. And lastly, despite prime lenses having so-called better image quality over zooms, unless you are printing 16" or wider, chances are these differences are negligible if your techique is good. Besides, I would opt for the convenience of a zoom vs the quality of a prime any day.

 

[waileong]

He never mentioned 50 mm till I suggested it.

 

[LAZyNPL]

IMO, get a Tamron 17-50/2.8 for now; good speed w/o a steep price (<$700). Familiar with & gain your style first before investing in any serious lenses.

When u ready, e following is some good choices of great bargain:
(Prices for quick-reference only)

Wide-zoom: 12-24mm/4 Tokina ~ $800
Std-zoom: 17-40mm/4 Canon ~ $1.1k
Tele-zoom: 70-200mm/2.8 Canon ~ $1.6k and 2xTC ~ $500

Macro-prime: 100mm/2,8 Canon ~ $800
Potrait-prime: 85mm/1.8 ~ $600
Tele-prime: 135mm/2 Canon ~ $1.3k
Supertele-prime: 400mm/5.6 Canon ~ $1.8k

:angel:

 

[lawrenchoo]

Same dillema I face between 17-55/24-70 and 24-105. Also using a 400D. After much thinking, i think I will be deciding on a 17-55 this September, unless Canon comes out with a 24-70 F2.8 with IS by then, then it will be the lens I buy. Wide angle, I think for my APS-C size sensor I will get an EFS 10-22 later.. I've personally tested the 24-70 image and compared it to a similar picture taken with my kit lens. Even on the 2.5" LCD, without zooming in, I can see quite drastic difference, esp colour saturation and contrast. Sharpness wise, of course only zoom in then can discern.

 

[westwest2]

IMO, get a Tamron 17-50/2.8 for now; good speed w/o a steep price (<$700). Familiar with & gain your style first before investing in any serious lenses.

When u ready, e following is some good choices of great bargain:
(Prices for quick-reference only)

Wide-zoom: 12-24mm/4 Tokina ~ $800
Std-zoom: 17-40mm/4 Canon ~ $1.1k
Tele-zoom: 70-200mm/2.8 Canon ~ $1.6k and 2xTC ~ $500

Macro-prime: 100mm/2,8 Canon ~ $800
Potrait-prime: 85mm/1.8 ~ $600
Tele-prime: 135mm/2 Canon ~ $1.3k
Supertele-prime: 400mm/5.6 Canon ~ $1.8k

:angel:

70-200 so cheap one arr?

 

[randytay]

IMO, get a Tamron 17-50/2.8 for now; good speed w/o a steep price (<$700). Familiar with & gain your style first before investing in any serious lenses.

When u ready, e following is some good choices of great bargain:
(Prices for quick-reference only)

Wide-zoom: 12-24mm/4 Tokina ~ $800
Std-zoom: 17-40mm/4 Canon ~ $1.1k
Tele-zoom: 70-200mm/2.8 Canon ~ $1.6k and 2xTC ~ $500

Macro-prime: 100mm/2,8 Canon ~ $800
Potrait-prime: 85mm/1.8 ~ $600
Tele-prime: 135mm/2 Canon ~ $1.3k
Supertele-prime: 400mm/5.6 Canon ~ $1.8k

:angel:

Unless he is just playing with photography for a couple of years and then totally drop it, I see no reason in getting a "less expensive" lens first to develop a style THEN go ahead and buy a similar lens by the OM. Why not just invest once and then forget about it rather than having to deal with selling the "less expensive" lens later which does not retain its value as much?